Stephen,

If everything is information being computed then obviously all observers 
are also part of that and thus analogous to running programs interacting 
computationally with the other running programs of reality. I guess I 
hadn't made that clear yet... 

Everything is analogous to a running program. Reality can be thought of as 
a single universal running program that can be analyzed into individual 
running programs. The distinction is that biological programs construct 
internal models of their program environments to improve their functioning. 
Non-biological programs just interact according to their natures with no 
such internal simulation data models of their environments...

Edgar

 

On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:58:15 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
> So far what I am missing are detailed explanations and definitions of 
> terms. Yes, we could read your book, but we wonder if it's content has 
> those explanations and definitions. OTOH, I have often explained my ideas 
> -which are rather technical- and have had thunderous silence in response. I 
> like people like Bruno that take the time to explain themselves, albeit in 
> very technical terms that are hard to comprehend at first. I find many of 
> his ideas very useful and have even come to agree with some of them.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> PS: In spite of your knee jerk reaction my treatment of 'Realization' 
> deals not with 'New Age' type nonsense but mainly with serious insights on 
> how to directly experience reality as it actually is such as:
>
> 1. The fundamental experience of our existence, our consciousness within a 
> present moment through which clock time flows and events happen, is the 
> direct experience of the continuing extension of the radial P-time 
> dimension of our 4-dimensional hyperspherical universe. Our fundamental 
> personal experience is our direct experience of the fundamental 
> cosmological process.
>
>
> This is not a new concept for me. It does not get to the questions I am 
> asking. If you had a toy model that would explain the basic concept, how it 
> works, I would be more interested. Please understand that I have been 
> studying philosophy of science and mathematics for a long time, focusing on 
> quantum gravity phenomenology, the problem of time and the mind-body 
> problem; the hard problems and have read just about every book and article 
> on the subject. 
>   Lately, I have been working on a proposal to research a novel form of 
> computation that requires a very deep dive into algebraic topology and 
> complexity theory and have learned a few things, one of which is that 
> computation and information are not simple concepts and have to be treated 
> very carefully and formally -as much as possible. Tossing the word 
> computation around as if it where a magic amulet to banish ignorance isn't 
> helping me. Understanding how the physical world and computations work 
> together is not a trivial problem and one should have at least a basic 
> model of how it works to communicate one's offered explanations.
>
>  
>
>
> 2. It is possible to directly experience that everything is its 
> information only.
>
>
> What else is there? What we experience are distinctions that make a 
> difference, to paraphrase Bateson. 
>
>  
>
> With understanding it becomes quite clear and directly observable that for 
> anything to be observed and experienced it simply must consist of 
> information. If it did not consist of information it would not be 
> observable. What we mistake for material things in a physical universe are 
> simply associations of different kinds of pure information. For example 
> what we normally think of as material stone is actually an association of 
> colors, feelings of texture, resistance to motion, temperature etc. all of 
> which are actually just different types of information.
>
>
> Of course, this is not a new idea.
>
>  
>
>
> So it is very very clear that everything is its information only, and that 
> this can be directly experienced. In fact we all directly experience this 
> all the time already, we just don't realize that we do.....
>
>
> Ah, but that is wrong. There must exist entities to whom those 
> distinctions that make a difference occur. Information alone explains 
> nothing. It is possible to define "entities" using information + dynanics, 
> as Louis H. Kauffman does with his notion of an eigenform, but this 
> requires that we treat information in a more subtle way that mere allusions 
> to "direct experience", etc.
>
>  
>
>
> Things have no 'self-substances'. They are all pure information whose only 
> 'substance' is OE. This is a modern statement of the ancient Vedic insight 
> that 'all forms are empty'.
>
>
> I slightly agree! It is easy to define things starting with a core of 
> self-reference - that aspect of computation that is the physical system's 
> exact self-simulation- and build out from there to consider how other 
> physical systems interact and communicate, but one has to have a basis of 
> concepts that include a pluralities of observers even if such are entities 
> only defined as that which a distinction makes a difference. Information is 
> *of a thing* and *to a thing*, it is not an independent substance that we 
> can mold into what ever form we like. 
>
>
>  
>
>
> 3. In my treatment of 'Realization' I also suggest that IF anyone needs a 
> God then the only rational definition is the universe itself because then 
> there is no doubt as to God's existence, and his attributes then become a 
> matter of scientific inquiry.
>
>
>
> I have no need for that hypothesis!
>
>
>
> So Stephen, as you can see, my book is hardly the 'New Age' nonsense your 
> knee jerk reaction imagined...
>
>
> It is you that is having that imagination. I would not level an accusation 
> of New Age nonsense at your book. You might like Andrew Soltau's 
> book<http://www.andrewsoltau.com/>as an example of a good attempt to answer 
> hard questions about "reality" 
> that stays just outside of the New Age. For a hard science take, I 
> recommend Russell Standish's *A theory of Nothing 
> <http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html>*.
>
>   I am far too ADHD to write a publishable book....
>
>  
>
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:52:42 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>  "how to directly experience reality as it actually is."  Now I am most 
> definitely not buying your book. Sorry, but that statement is anathema to 
> me. I have had quite enough of people claiming to have a way for me to know 
> "what is really going on". 99.99999999999999% of the time they 
> are peddling snake oil. 
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> A couple of responses.
>
> Forget all other theories when you read mine and judge it only on its own 
> merits... Don't shoehorn!
>
> Only information is being computed. It exists independent of things. What 
> are called 'things' are mental interpretations of computational information 
> domains extracted by biological organisms to facilitate their internal 
> simulation computations of a continuous reality. 
>
> The information in reality is continuous but it does manifest as domains. 
> Humans look at domains and variously simulate them as things. E.g. surfers 
> extract waves from a continuous ocean while oceanographers see currents, 
> and smelt see tides. There are no individual 'things' in reality because it 
> is a continuous computational nexus of information. E.g looking at some 
> area of continuous information we can identify either leaves, twigs, 
> branches or a whole tree. It's all one continuous information segment but 
> minds can separate it into overlapping 'things' to facilitate mental 
> computations. If you understand how robots extract 'things' from raw 
> sensory input you will understand that. It's a very complex and difficult 
> and eventually an artificial process dependent on the structure of the 
> observer's mind...
>
> Actually the information world, the fact that all is its information only 
> IS directly observable with understanding and practice. I explain this in 
> Part VI of my book titled "Realization", that is how to directly experience 
> reality as it actually is.
>
> Yes, understanding QM and GR cl
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to